Soil Report

GEOTECHNICAL FOUNDATION EXPERTS Lot 12- MAR ROUKOZ
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Plot 12 – MAR ROUKOZ
MOUNT LEBANON
WAREHOUSE & SHOWROOM
Presented to: Mr. Toufic Kriedieh & Yasser Beydoun, Owners
December 26, 2015

Our File No. 931– J15 – L04
1
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4
2. SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION ................................................................................. 5
3. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS .............................................................................................. 6
4. LABORATORY TESTS ................................................................................................... 8
5. GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE AREA ............................................................................ 8
a. REGIONALGEOLOGY ........................................................................................ 8
b. SEISMICITY IN THE AREA ................................................................................. 9
c. SEISMIC PARAMETERS .................................................................................. 10
6. GROUNDWATER TABLE ............................................................................................ 10
7. DRAINAGE SYSTEM ................................................................................................... 11
8. LABORATORY RESULTS ............................................................................................ 11
9. GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION- SUBSURFACE STRATA .......................................... 12
10. FOUNDATION TYPE ................................................................................................... 14
11. FOUNDATION DESIGN ............................................................................................... 14
11.1 Bearing capacity ............................................................................................. 14
11.2 Settlement ....................................................................................................... 17
11.3 Coefficient of sliding ....................................................................................... 18
12. STATIC AND DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURES ON THE RETAINING WALL ................ 19
a. Static earth pressure ....................................................................................... 19
b. Dynamic earth pressure .................................................................................. 20
c. Earth pressure induced by the surcharge loads (traffic and buildings) ............. 20
2
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
13. SHORING AND EXCAVATION WORKS ....................................................................... 21
14. GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS ................................................................................ 22
15. DEWATERING ............................................................................................................ 23
16. FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .................................................. 23
17. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 23
18. CLOSURE .................................................................................................................... 26
APPENDIX A- SITE PHOTOS ............................................................................................. 28
LOCATION OF BOREHOLES ............................................................................................ 32
APPENDIX B - CORE PHOTOGRAPHS .............................................................................. 33
APPENDIX C – BOREHOLE LOGS ..................................................................................... 34
APPENDIX D – SUMMARY TABLE .................................................................................... 35
APPENDIX E – LABORATORY RESULTS .......................................................................... 36
List of figures
Figure 1 : Aerial view with approximate location of the site ....................................................... 4
Figure 2 : Geological mapping in the proposed area ................................................................ 9
Figure 3 : Percentage of Sand (Left), Percentage of Fines (Right) ......................................... 11
Figure 4 : Representation of water effect on the bearing capacity ........................................... 16
List of tables
Table 1 : Coordinates of the in-situ testing ................................................................................ 6
Table 2 : Laboratory testing ....................................................................................................... 8
Table 3 : Soil classification ...................................................................................................... 12
Table 4: Factors for bearing capacity ...................................................................................... 15
Table 5: Water effect on the bearing capacity.......................................................................... 15
Table 6 : Proposed geotechnical parameters .......................................................................... 22
3
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
1. INTRODUCTION
Upon the request of Mr. Michel Youssef, project manager, a geotechnical investigation was
conducted during December 2015 at the proposed site located on lot 12 in Mar Roukoz. It
is as per our understanding that the project will consist of constructing of commercial
building including showrooms and warehouse and consisting of one basement and two
upper floors. The excavation depth can reach 11m from the actual ground level. It should
be noted that the number of stories and final excavation could be modified depending on
the final architectural concept design. The plot covers an area of around 4100m2. The
actual lands in the proposed project are free from any construction. The parcel is almost
flat and the elevation of the actual ground is around 54.5 mASL.
The below picture presents the aerial view of the site location:
Proposed Plot 307

project-
Plot 12
Plot 306
Figure 1 : Aerial view with approximate location of the site
4
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
The access on the site is available at the corner between the plot 306 and the main road.
There were buildings on the eastern and the western sides of the plot.
The plot is bordered:
- To the North by the plot 308 free from any construction,

- To the South by the main road on Mar Roukoz,
- To the East by two existing buildings on lots 306 (six stories including one basement)
and 307 (six stories with eventually one basement). The foundation levels of each
building were not defined.
- To the West by the Volvo showroom building, constructed on plot 128,
2. SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION
The purpose of this investigation was to determine the subsurface soil/rock parameters,
properties of existing layers in order to provide the necessary information of a proper
foundation design to safely carry out the applied structural loads in addition to
recommendations for geotechnical aspects relevant to the project like shoring and
dewatering.
The boreholes have been conducted to study and to sample the composition and structure of
the subsurface. The location and depth of the boreholes are defined in agreement with the
Client in order to collect information necessary to establish the geotechnical parameters for
the design of the foundations. The Laboratory testing was conducted in accordance with the
international standard ASTM (American Society for Testing Materials).
The scope of the investigation consisted of the following:
1. Performing boreholes to explore the subsurface conditions and to collect

samples for laboratory testing,
5
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
2. Performing laboratory testing to determine the properties of the collected

samples,
3. Preparing a Geotechnical Report outlining the field observations, laboratory
results and providing geotechnical recommendations:
 Bearing capacity,
 Shoring recommendations,
 Groundwater levels and construction dewatering requirements if needed.
3. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
The field drilling program was carried out between 11 and 16 December 2015. The
requested investigation as agreed with the client’s representative and which were set on
site included six (6) Boreholes down to a depth varying from 15m to 30m totaling 131 linear
meters. The elevation of the top of each borehole is almost at elevation 55.4 mASL. The
coordinates of the in-situ testing are listed in the below table:
Table 1 : Coordinates of the in-situ testing

Borehole Depth (m) Easting Northing
BH1 15 -332829.44 -30217.98
BH2 25.5 -332837.74 -30196.33
BH3 20 -332802.28 -30179.66
BH4 25.5 -332803.12 -30141.82
BH5 30 -332818.15 -30173.81

BH6 15 -332830.95 -30162.19
* The location and elevations of our explorations are approximate and were determined using a hand held
GPS device, they should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used
6
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
Drilling was carried out using the rotary wash boring techniques. The drilling rig consisted
of a chain mounted Sandvik machine. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) was carried out in
all boreholes at intervals of 1.5m where possible.
Sampling was carried out at 1.5m intervals. The drill pipe was withdrawn from the hole at
the end of every interval and samples recovered were placed in special boxes for visual
description.
During the drilling process, the so-called TCR, SCR and RQD are measured per core run.
The SCR (%) (Solid Core Recovery) gives the percentage of solid material per drilling
interval. The TCR (%) is the percentage of the total length of core recovered to the length
of drilling interval. The RQD (Rock Quality Designation) value stands for the percentage of
intact core pieces (10cm or longer) per the length of drilling interval. A photographic
document of the site and during drilling operations is presented in Appendix A. Photos of
the core boxes are presented in Appendix B.
The Borehole logs have been prepared for each borehole in accordance to the site
observation, samples description and material classification. The borehole logs are
presented in Appendix C.
The Standard Penetration test (SPT) was done at each interval in accordance with ASTM
D-1586. Samples were extracted by the split spoon for classification and determination of
the water content. The split sampler tube having an outer diameter of 50mm is driven in the
soil by using a 63.5kg hammer freely falling a distance of 760mm. The SPT N value is the
number of blows required to achieve a penetration of 300 mm, after an initial seating drive
of 150 mm.
Two piezometers were installed in boreholes BH3 and BH4 for subsequent ground water
monitoring.
7
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
4. LABORATORY TESTS
Representative soil samples have been selected from the boreholes to determine:
1. The liquid, plastic limits and moisture content in order to evaluate the plasticity
characteristics of the soil,
2. The grain-size characteristics of granular soils by performing sieve analysis
tests,
The laboratory tests follow the guideline of the ASTM standards and were conducted
according to the following standards:
Table 2 : Laboratory testing

Test description ASTM Quantity
designation
Sieve analysis ASTM D422 22

Liquid and Plastic Limits ASTM D4318 22
Moisture content ASTM D2216 22
5. GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE AREA
a. REGIONALGEOLOGY
According to the geological map established by Dubertret, in the proposed area, the
geological formation encountered consists of “C1- Grès de Base” described below:
C1 “ Grès de base, Neocomian-Barremian”: Varicoloured, cross bedded Sandstone with
inter-beds of shale; contains heavy minerals; color depends upon percentage of hematite
and presence of volcanics giving purplish color; Sand is sometimes white.
8
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
Figure 2 : Geological mapping in the proposed area
b. SEISMICITY IN THE AREA
During our inspection on site, no major signs of faulting were recorded. It is well noted that
earthquake movements are frequent on the seabed along the Lebanese coast.
The site can be affected by the Mount Lebanon thrust (MLT) revealed by the marine
geophysical campaign (2004). This newly identified, ~150 km long, east-dipping, crustal
thrust, plunges under the western flanks of the Mount Lebanon range. New earthquake
zones have been defined in Lebanon, encompassing all regions of the country.
Therefore, we strongly recommend to take into considerations the seismic effect in the
analysis and design of the building, retaining walls and foundations.
9
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
The region is crossing by one secondary fault as indicated on the below geological map (red
lines). The minimum distance between the proposed lot to the secondary fault is around
200m.
Secondary fault
Plot 12
Figure 3 : Location of secondary minor fault
c. SEISMIC PARAMETERS
The subsurface formations consist of dense Silty Sand. Seismic Soil Profile Type associated
with these formations is SD according to the Uniform Building Code (UBC 1997) with peak
ground acceleration equal to 0.25g at the level of rock surface that should be adjusted
according to site effect. According with the NEHRP, 1999, the seismic coefficients are:
Ca=0.32 and Cv=0.47.
6. GROUNDWATER TABLE
Water table was encountered approximately at depth 11m below the actual ground level.
Water level was determined on December 15, 2015. Fluctuations of the groundwater level
will occur due to seasonal variations depending on the amount of rainfall, runoff and other
factors not evident at the time of the monitoring.
10
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
7. DRAINAGE SYSTEM
Surface drainage system is required to collect the rainfall and runoff water. Surface water
may be arriving during rainy seasons from the upper level must be intercepted and
evacuated outside the lots by an adequate system. An open ditch surrounded the site can
be used during the foundations activities and construction of retaining walls.
Drainage system behind the retaining walls is required and consists of drainage aggregate
wrapped with geotextile and equipped by perforated pipes.
8. LABORATORY RESULTS
The laboratory results are presented in the summary table and in the appendices D and E.
The below graphs present the variation versus depth of the percentage of Sand and Fines:
Figure 4 : Percentage of Sand (Left), Percentage of Fines (Right)
11
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
According to the ASTM D-2487, representative samples can be classified as below
Table 3 : Soil classification
Depth of
BH Sample No. Group Symbol Group Name
sampling (m)
1 1 3 SM Silty sand
1 2 6 GM Silty gravel with sand
1 3 12 SM Silty sand
2 1 3 SM Silty sand
2 2 9 SM Silty sand
2 4 19.5 SM Silty sand
5 1 3 SM Silty sand
6 2 9 SM Silty sand
9. GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION- SUBSURFACE STRATA
Reference should be made to the Borehole Reports in Appendix C for details of the
subsurface conditions encountered in each test location. Based on the results of
12
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
geotechnical laboratory testing and our visual inspection on the site, the stratigraphy
encountered can be described as below:
 Layer 1: Fill and agricultural soil
This layer was encountered at the top level of each borehole having a thickness that can
reach 1.5m. This material consisted of brown Silty SAND with gravel and herbs roots. The
density of the fill is variable. In general the soil fill is generally loose. The fill was found to be
dry to moist.
 Layer 2 : Brown and reddish brown, medium dense to dense Silty SAND
Natural soil was encountered beneath the above layer and consisting of brown and reddish
brown non plastic soil. The thickness of this layer can reach 10.5m. According with the
ASTM classification, this layer can be classified as SM. The average percentage of Sand is
around 60% and the percentage of fines is around 40%. Top 3m of this layer “2” is
characterized by a loose to medium dense Silty SAND followed by a dense Silty SAND.
We note also the presence of weak thin weathered sandstone layer (40cm thick) at depth
4.5m in the BH2.
 Layer 3 : Yellowish brown Silty SAND
This layer was encountered beneath the layer 2 and consisting of very dense, yellowish
brown, Silty SAND. This layer reaches the bottom level of the boreholes. In Accordance with
the ASTM classification, this layer can be classified as SM. The average percentage of
Sand is around 75% and the percentage of fines is around 25%.
13
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
10.FOUNDATION TYPE
Raft foundation is recommended. This type is recommended due to the presence of the
water table and the eventual fluctuation of the water level during winter season. The raft
foundation is also recommended to reduce the differential settlement and to eliminate any
risk of water seepage toward the basements.
11.FOUNDATION DESIGN
The allowable bearing capacity is based on the mechanical properties of the ground, the
dimensions of the foundation and the embedment depth. Two criteria should be verified:
- The formation has an adequate factor of safety against ultimate failure.

- The formation does not exhibit excessive settlement which could cause
damages to the superstructure.
11.1 Bearing capacity
The bearing capacity of soil depends on the plastic parameters of the ground (cohesion and
friction angle) and on others factors (shape and dimensions of the foundation, embedment
depth etc...).
The ultimate bearing capacity can be calculated by using Meyerhof’s approach as below:
qult  cN c ss bc ic  0.5 B' N s b i  qNq sq bq iq (1)
C: cohesion, q: effective vertical stress at the base of the proposed foundation, γ : unit
weight of soil.
The capacity factors can be estimated by using Meyerhof (1963) as follows:
14
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
Table 4: Factors for bearing capacity

Bearing capacity Shape factors Inclination factors
factors
        B '   
2
N q  e  tan  . tan 2    S q  1  0.1 tan 2   .   100 iq  1  
 4 2   4 2  L'  90 
Sq  1   00
N  N q  1. tan1.4       B'  

2
S   1  0.1 tan 2   .   100 i  1     00
  4 2  L '  
S  1   00 i  0 for   0 0   0 0
N c  N q  1. cot      B'   

2
S c  1  0.2 tan 2   . ic  1  
  4 2  L'  90 
B’ and L’ are the effective dimensions, Ф is the friction angle, Ө is the angle between the
vertical and the inclined loads. The effect of ground water on the ultimate bearing capacity
shall be considered by using a weighted average for the soil unit weight:
Table 5: Water effect on the bearing capacity
Location of water   370   370
table (see below
figure)
zw  B  m  m
zw  B  zw   z w m    ' 
   ' . m   '   2 D  z w  2 
  2  D  z w 
2
 B  D  D 
  
D  0.5 B tan   
 4 2
zw  0  '  '
Above parameters are described on the following picture:
15
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
Figure 5 : Representation of water effect on the bearing capacity
The geotechnical parameters for the calculation of the bearing capacity are the follows:
- Friction angle : 300,

- Total unit weight: 18 kN/m3.
The allowable static bearing capacity is calculated by taken a factor of safety equal to 3 as
described below:
qu  q0
qa   q0
Fs  3
For dynamic verification, the Engineer should verify that the maximum pressure on soil
cannot exceed 1.33 times the allowable static bearing capacity.
The proposed static bearing capacity for a centered load needed to avoid the failure of
subsurface formation is 250 kPa. This value is based on foundation placed on dense soil
and the water level is not reached.
16
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
11.2 Settlement
The settlement of foundation on sandy layer can be estimated using the method of
Schmertmann (1970) which calculates settlement from layer stiffness data. The method
proposed a simplified triangular strain distribution and calculates the settlement accordingly.
The equation for elastic settlement is:
n
Δz i
S e  C1 .C 2 .q 0  .I zi (2)
1 E si
Where,
'
C1  1 
2P
C1 : correction to account for strain relief from excavated soil, σ' : effective overburden
pressure at bottom of the footing, ΔP : net applied footing pressure, C 2 : correction for time-
dependent creep take equal to 1, Esi : one-dimensional elastic modulus of soil layer “I”, Δzi :
thickness of soil layer , Izi : influence factor at the centre of soil layer “I” as described below.
The strain influence factor Izi increases linearly from 0.1 (L/B=1) or 0.2 (L/B=10) at the
bottom of the footing to a maximum of 0.6 at a depth 0.5B below the footing when L/B=1 and
at a depth B when L/B=10, where B is the footing width and L is the footing length. The
strain influence factor then decreases linearly to zero at a depth of 2B or 4B (depending of
L/B) below the footing bottom. This distribution is shown below.
17
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
The estimated modulus of deformation of the subsurface is taken equal to 30000kPa for
dense soil.
11.3 Coefficient of sliding
Lateral forces from soil, wind, or seismic loading may be resisted by friction along the base
of the footings. The passive earth pressure on the basement wall should be neglected.
The coefficient of sliding of concrete on Sandy soil can be estimated using equation from
NAVfAC, 1982 as below:
2 
f s  tan   
3 
The friction angle is equal to 300.
18
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
12.STATIC AND DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURES ON THE RETAINING

WALL
a. Static earth pressure

The static active pressure on the basement wall executed at the limit of any shoring system
(without backfilling) can be calculated by using the Peck’s pressure diagram as indicated
below:
P (kPa )  0.65K a H
1  sin 
ka 
1  sin 
The friction angle to be taken is 300 and the soil unit weight is 18 kN/m3.
In addition to the above, the nearby loads induced by the surcharge (building, roads) should
be taken into consideration.
We note that the accurate static pressure on basement wall adjacent to the shoring system
should be calculated by a finite element modeling that takes into consideration the soil-
structural interaction and the residual deformation induced by the shoring works.
19
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
In case of backfilling between basement wall and the natural ground, a selected backfill
material is recommended with adequate energy of compaction in accordance with
standards. Backfilling material behind the retaining wall should not contain fine materials
and the cohesion should be taken as null. Drainage system should be completed with a
perforated pipes wrapped with geotextile installed at the bottom level of the drainage layer.
The water shall be evacuated outside the lot. The active pressure can be calculated by the
below equation:
P  K . v  S  (3)
σv: total vertical stress, S: semi-infinite surcharge at the top surface. K: at rest coefficient
of pressure (K0) taken equal to 0.5. The Unit weight of the backfill shall be taken equal to
19kN/m3.
b. Dynamic earth pressure

For buried structure, the dynamic pressure shall be computed by using an additional
horizontal earth pressure applied on one side of the structure. According with Eurocode 8, a
simplified method for rigid braced structure can be adopted. A uniform rectangular load
should be applied along the free length, this uniform load is equal to:
P   .S . .H (4)
Where:
S: soil factor equal to 1.35,  : factor equal to 0.25, H : free height length,  : soil unit
weight.
c. Earth pressure induced by the surcharge loads (traffic and buildings)

The lateral active pressure induced by any type of applied surcharge should be taken into
consideration as per the below calculation methodology:
20
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
Pressure applied at distance “d” Pressure adjacent to e

the wall (Traffic load effect for example)
The friction angle “φ” to be considered is 300 and the Kaq is the active pressure coefficient
equal to (1-sinφ)/(1+sinφ).
13.SHORING AND EXCAVATION WORKS
Due to the presence silty SAND and existence of adjacent buildings and the main road, rigid
temporary shoring system along the all sides of the parcel.
The diameter of piles depends on the number/spacing needed to limit the lateral and the
vertical soil movements. Performance of the anchors should be justified by pull-out test
according with the standard.
The determination of the embedment depth should be carried to respect the below conditions:
1. Obtaining an adequate safety factor against global stability,
2. Withstanding the vertical component of the anchors, to avoid any failure of the
soil below the toe of the pile,
21
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
3. Obtaining a sufficient stability against passive pressure failure. The ratio

between the full passive pressure and the mobilized passive earth pressure
should be at least 1.5 for a temporary retaining system,
4. Maximum horizontal displacement should be defined to avoid any damage for

surrounding existing structures. In general, the lateral soil displacement should
be limited to 5mm at the top level of the shoring and should not exceed 20mm
below 5m depth from the top.
A periodic inspection by the geotechnical engineer on site is recommended to oversee all

earthworks, shoring execution and foundation construction activities. The excavation could
be achieved with conventional earthworks equipments like rippers.
14.GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
The below table presents the assumed geotechnical properties for design of the temporary
shoring system:
Table 6 : Proposed geotechnical parameters

Layer 1 Layer 3
Parameters Layer 2
(Fill)
Below layer 2
Thickness 1.5 10.5 (bottom of
boreholes)
Unit weight (kN/m3) 17 18 19
Cohesion (kPa) 0 0 0
Friction angle (0) 27 30 35
At rest coefficient of lateral pressure (k0)-
Jacky equation
0.55 0.5 0.43
22
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
Active coefficient of lateral pressure (Ka) with

ᵟa=0 (Rankine equation)
0.38 0.33 0.27
Passive coefficient of lateral pressure (Kp) with
ᵟp=0 (Rankine equation)
2.66 3.0 3.69
15.DEWATERING
Dewatering is not required if the final excavation level is located above level of the water
table.
16.FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
If unsuitable bearing, cavities, disturbed soil or fill material are encountered in the foundation
level, the excavation should be extended deeper to suitable soil and the foundation could
bear directly on soil at the lower level or on cyclopean concrete placed in the excavation.
The foundation could also bear on properly compacted granular fill extending down to
suitable soil. The backfilling shall be lead on layer not exceeding 20cm and compacted to at
least 95 percent of the material’s maximum dry density (ASTM D698). A well-graded,
granular material with 10% or less fines (material passing the #200 sieve) is recommended.
17.CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A geotechnical investigation was conducted at the proposed site located in Mar Roukoz on
plot 12. This investigation included drilling a total of six boreholes. The following is a
summary of our findings:
23
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
- Geological formation encountered consists of fill material followed by medium to

very dense Silty SAND ,
- Water table was encountered during investigation in each borehole. Water depth
is measured at depth 11m from the actual ground level,
- Raft foundation is recommended,
- Foundation should be laid on dense soil, and water level should not be reached.
- The allowable bearing capacity for a centered load is 250 kPa. This value is
applicable for raft place on very dense Silty SAND. The proposed sub grade
reaction modulus is 20,000 kN/m3,
- Drainage system is recommended to prevent any water flow toward the bearing
layer,
- The retaining wall and the basement wall should be designed to take into
consideration the effect of the active pressure induced by the soil, water
pressure and any type of surcharge pressure as discussed in the above
sections,
- Reinforced concrete walls shall be coated with bituminous coating, acrylic

modified cement, surface bonding mortar or any material permitted for
waterproofing. From the top of the footing to finished grade,
- All possible loose soil, pockets or disturbed formations should be removed and
replaced by cyclopean concrete,
- Bearing strata at the level of the foundation should be inspected. Presence of

cavities and fissures should be subjected to treatment before the starting of the
foundation works,
24
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
- The founding layer must be virgin soil condition and not backfill material
resulting from any previous site activities,
- Foundation and all underground concrete works should be realized and

completed in dry conditions,
- Lean concrete layer of 10cm thickness should be provided below footing base.
Regarding the temporary shoring system, we recommend the below:
- The execution of the basements requires a deep excavation that can reach a depth
of 11m depending on the final architectural drawings. Due to the type of the
geological formation and the presence of adjacent buildings, adequate temporary
rigid vertical shoring system is needed along all sides of the plot.
- A specialized shoring contractor should execute the temporary retaining system

and will be responsible of the study and execution of the shoring and excavation
works. The shoring contractor should provide the final design based on soil
characteristics of different formations noted in the borehole log. At the beginning of
the excavation phase, the shoring contractor should apply his own soil investigation
campaign and use the parameters adopted by him under his responsibility and thus
the shoring contractor shall provide the detailed shoring design accordingly. The
detailed shoring design should be in order to avoid any damage of the surrounding
existing projects at all phases of works,
- A continuous inspection is recommended to check the stability of the excavation to

be done by a professional geotechnical company under their own responsibility.
- It is strongly recommended to execute the shoring and the excavation works during
the dry season,
25
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
- During the execution of the shoring system, the shoring contractor should be able to
review and check the characteristics of the soil formations and to compare these
characteristics with those taken in the detailed design. Any discrepancies in
characteristics shall be submitted to the Client and the design of the shoring system
should be revised accordingly by the contractor and submitted to the Client. The
shoring contractor should submit to the Client for approval a detailed schedule of
works with different work sequences related to the shoring and the excavation
procedure.
- It’s recommended to monitor the temporary retaining system and the surrounding
existing buildings during each excavation phase by the target surveys with highly
precision. The measured values for each phase of excavation should be compared
with the results of the modeling provided by the contractor. If the measured values
for any phase exceed the calculated values, the contractor should adopt another
execution approach to limit the lateral displacement of the shoring.
18.CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client for specific application to
the project discussed and has been prepared with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practices. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the
project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations
contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless our office reviews the changes
and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.
The conducted site investigation was based on the locations and boring depth provided by
the client.
26
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
Also should any conditions be encountered that differ from those obtained from these
boreholes and as indicated as per our report, GFE should be notified and requested to
review the report recommendations in light of the new conditions.
All data provided here are only based on six boreholes and could differ in other boreholes
and other locations on site. When reaching the bearing layer, GFE shall inspect the site and
provide the necessary recommendations depending on the geological formation
encountered.
Prepared by Geotechnical Foundation Experts
Jad Wakim, Ph.D.,M.Eng.,PE

GFE Consultant
Fadi Hanna, Geotechnical Engineer

Managing Director
27
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
APPENDIX A- SITE PHOTOS
28
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
29
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
30
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
31
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
LOCATION OF BOREHOLES
32
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
APPENDIX B - CORE PHOTOGRAPHS
33
BH-1 (0-15m)
1.5m 3.0m
4.5m 6.0 m
7.5m 9.0m 10.5m
12.0m 13.5m
15.0m
Mar Roukoz-Lot 12
BH-2 (0-25.5m)
1.5m 3.0m
4.5m 6.0m
7.5m 9.0m
10.5m 12.0m
13.5m 15.0m
16.5m 18.0m
19.5m 21.0m
22.5m 24m 25.5m
Mar Roukoz-Lot 12
BH-3 (0-20m)
1.5m 3.0m
4.5m 6.0m
7.5m 9.0m
10.5m 12.0m
13.5m 15.0m
16.5m 18.0m
19.5m 20.0m
Mar Roukoz-Lot 12
BH-4 (0-25.5m)
1.5m 3.0m
4.5m 6.0m
7.5m 9.0m
10.5m 12.0m
13.5m 15.0m
16.5m 18.0m
19.5m 21.0m
22.5m 24m
25.5m
Mar Roukoz-Lot 12
BH-5 (0-30m)
1.5m 3.0m
4.5m 6.0m
7.5m 9.0m
10.5m 12.0m
13.5m 15.0m
16.5m 18.0m
19.5m 21.0m
22.5m 24m
25.5m 27.0m 28.5m 30.0m
Mar Roukoz-Lot 12
BH-6 (0-15m)
1.5m 3.0m
4.5m 6.0m
7.5m
9.0m
10.5m
12.0m
13.5m
15.0m
Mar Roukoz-Lot 12
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
APPENDIX C – BOREHOLE LOGS
34
LOG OF BORING
PROJECT: WAREHOUSE & SHOWROOM COORDINATES:

CLIENT: - E: -332829.44 N: -30217.98 BOREHOLE NO.: BH1
LOCATION: MAR ROUKOZ-LOT 12 ELEVATION (mASL) -
BORING EQUIPMENT: SANDVIK BORING METHOD CORING/AUGER/SPT SHEET NO. 1
CASING DIAM. (mm): - CORE DIAM. (mm): - BOREHOLE DEPTH (m): 15.0
DRILLING DATE: 11/12/2015 WATER TABLE: 11m ORIENTATION: VERTICAL
DEPTH (m)
Water Depth
R.Q.D (%)
LEGEND
SYMBOL
REC (%)
SCR (%)
N-SPT VERSUS DEPTH
blows
SPT
SN
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL NOTES
N
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
_
_
_ Brown, Silty SAND with Gravel (Fill material) and
- - -
1 presence of herbs roots
_
_ X 3,5,10 15
_ 15
2 Gravel : 3.7%
_ Brown and reddish brown, dense Silty Sand : 60.8%

- - -
_ SAND (SM)
_ Fines : 35.5%
3 S1 X 3,5,21 26
_ 26
_
_ Ditto
- - -
4
_
_ X 5,15,50 50
_ >50
5 Gravel : 55.7%
_ Ditto with Gravel (GM)

- - - Sand : 30.8%
_
_ Fines : 13.5%
6 S2 X 12,24,50 50
_ >50
_
_ Brown, dense Silty SAND (SM)
- - -
7
_
_ X 9,27,50 50
_ >50
8
_ Ditto
- - -
_
_
9 X 4,13,50 50
_ >50
_
_ Grayish brown, dense Silty SAND (SM)
- - -
10
_
_ X 14,40,50 50
_ >50
Gravel : 0%
11
_ Ditto
11m
Sand : 63.6%
- - -
_
Fines : 36.4%
_
12 S3 X 3,30,50 50
_ >50
_
_ Yellowish brown, dense, Silty SAND (SM)
- - -
13
_
_ X 4,11,50 50
_ >50
14
_ Ditto
- - -
_
_ 6,15,50
50
15 X >50 End of boring at 15m
SPT Standard Penetration Test REC Recuperation Sample Number

VST Lab vane shear test RQD Rock Quality Designation Symbol
LT Layer Thickness SCR Solid Core Recovery Water Table
N Number of blows from SPT. Where full 0.3m has not been achieved, the number of blows for the quoted penetration is given
*: Approximate coordinates ---- Approximate interpolation line between two consecutive SPT, the reality could be different
LOG OF BORING

BORING EQUIPMENT: SANDVIK BORING METHOD CORING/AUGER/SPT SHEET NO. 1 of 2
DEPTH (m)
Water Depth
R.Q.D (%)
LEGEND
SYMBOL
REC (%)
SCR (%)
N-SPT VERSUS DEPTH
blows
SPT
SN
N
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
_
_
- - -
_
_ X 4,12,17
_ 29 29
Gravel : 6.3%
2
_ Brown, dense, Silty SAND (SM) Sand : 56.1%
- - -
_
Fines : 37.6%
_
3 S1 X 7,12,25
_ 37 37
_
_ Weathered Sandstone interbedded with Silty
- - -
4 SAND
_
_ X 50
_ R
5
_ Gray, stiff, Clayey Soil with Brown Silty
- - -
_ SAND
_
6 X 4,22,50
50
_ >50
_
_ Brown, dense, Silty SAND (SM)
- - -
7
_
_ X 4,27,50
50
_ >50
Gravel : 0.9%
8
_ Ditto Sand : 55.3%
- - -
_
Fines : 43.8%
_
9 S2 X 4,30,50
50
_ >50
_
_ Ditto
- - -
10
_
_ X 6,29,50
50
_ >50
11
_ Ditto
11m
- - -
_
_
12 X 3,30,50
50
_ >50
_
_ Ditto
- - -
13
_
_ X 4,15,50
50
_ >50
Gravel : 0%
14
- - -
_
Fines : 35.2%
_
15 S3 X 5,16,50
50
_ >50
_
_ Ditto
- - -
16
_
_ X 3,18,50 50
_ >50
17 Yellowish brown, dense, Silty SAND (SM)
_
_

LOG OF BORING

DEPTH (m)
Water Depth
R.Q.D (%)
LEGEND
SYMBOL
REC (%)
SCR (%)
N-SPT VERSUS DEPTH
blows
SPT
SN
N
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
_
18 X 6,18,50 50
_ >50
Gravel : 0%
_
19
Fines : 44.4%
_
_ S4 X 5,21,50
50
_ >50
20
_ Ditto
_
_
21 X 9,18,50
50
_ >50
_
_ Ditto
22
_
_ X 7,15,50
50
_ >50
Gravel : 0%
23
_
Fines : 27.3%
_
24 S5 X 10,18,50
50
_ >50
_
_ Ditto
25
_ 8,21,50
_ X >50 50 End of boring at 25.5m

LOG OF BORING

DEPTH (m)
Water Depth
R.Q.D (%)
LEGEND
SYMBOL
REC (%)
SCR (%)
N-SPT VERSUS DEPTH
blows
SPT
SN
N
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
_
_
- - -
_
_ X 3,5,7
_ 12 12
2
- - -
_
_
3 X 5,7,24
_ 31
Gravel : 3.9%
_ 31
- - -
4
Fines : 26.9%
_
_ S1 X 24,50,50
_ >50
5
50
_ Ditto
- - -
_
_
6 X 18,38,50
_ >50
_
_ 50 Ditto
- - -
7
_
_ X 24,41,50
_ >50
8
_ Reddish brown, dense, Silty SAND (SM)
50 - - -
_
_
9 X 7,18,50
_ >50
_
_ Ditto
- - -
10 50
_
_ X 3,10,50
_ >50
11
_ Ditto
11m
- - -
_
50
_
12 X 7,25,50
_ >50
Gravel : 0%
_
_ Yellowish brown, dense, Silty SAND (SM) Sand : 83.4%
- - -
13
Fines : 16.6%
_ 50
_ S2 X 9,15,50
_ >50
14
_ Ditto
- - -
_
_
50
15 X 6,18,50
_ >50
_
_ Ditto
- - -
16
_
_ X 10,21,50 50
_ >50
Gravel : 0%
17
_
Fines : 22.8%
_
18 S3 X 7,18,40
_ >50 50
_
_ Ditto
19
_
_
_ 12,23,50
20 X >50 50 End of boring at 20m
LOG OF BORING

DEPTH (m)
Water Depth
R.Q.D (%)
LEGEND
SYMBOL
REC (%)
SCR (%)
N-SPT VERSUS DEPTH
blows
SPT
SN
N
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
_
_
- - -
_
_ X 6,9,10
_ 19 19
2
- - -
_
_
3 X 4,11,19
_ 30 30
Gravel : 0.8%
_
_ Ditto Sand : 52%
- - -
4
Fines : 47.2%
_
_ S1 X 5,27,50
50
_ >50
5
_ Reddish brown, Silty SAND (SM)
- - -
_
_
6 X 7,30,50
50
_ >50
_
_ Ditto
- - -
7
_
_ X 8,33,50
50
_ >50
8
_ Ditto
- - -
_
_
9 X 9,27,50
50
_ >50
_
_ Ditto
- - -
10
_
_ X 7,40,50
50
_ >50
Gravel : 0.9%
11
_ Ditto
11m
Sand : 75.9%
- - -
_
Fines : 23.2%
_
12 S2 X 10,22,50
50
_ >50
_
- - -
13
_
_ X 6,27,50
50
_ >50
14
_ Ditto
- - -
_
_
15 X 7,20,50
50
_ >50
_
_ Ditto
- - -
16
_
_ X 9,18,50 50
_ >50
17
_
_

LOG OF BORING

DEPTH (m)
Water Depth
R.Q.D (%)
LEGEND
SYMBOL
REC (%)
SCR (%)
N-SPT VERSUS DEPTH
blows
SPT
SN
N
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
_
18 X 9,22,50 50
_ >50
Gravel : 0%
_
19
Fines : 17.6%
_
_ S3 X 8,20,50
50
_ >50
20
_ Ditto
_
_
21 X 7,18,50
50
_ >50
_
_ Ditto
22
_
_ X 6,15,50
50
_ >50
23
_ Ditto
_
_
24 X 7,20,50
50
_ >50
Gravel : 0%
_
25
Fines : 18.3%
_ 8,19,50
_ S4 X >50 50 End of boring at 25.5m

LOG OF BORING

DEPTH (m)
Water Depth
R.Q.D (%)
LEGEND
SYMBOL
REC (%)
SCR (%)
N-SPT VERSUS DEPTH
blows
SPT
SN
N
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
_
_
- - -
_
_ X 5,7,9
_ 16 16
Gravel : 0%
2
_ Grayyish brown, dense, Silty SAND (SM) Sand : 58.6%
- - -
_
Fines : 41.4%
_
3 S1 X 11,12,15
_ 27 27
_
_ Ditto
- - -
4
_
_ X 4,22,50
50
_ >50
5
_ Reddish brown, Silty SAND (SM)
- - -
_
_
6 X 3,30,50
50
_ >50
_
_ Ditto
- - -
7
_
_ X 6,27,50
50
_ >50
8
_ Ditto
- - -
_
_
9 X 7,30,50
50
_ >50
Gravel : 0.7%
_
- - -
10
Fines : 44.9%
_
_ S2 X 8,20,50
50
_ >50
11
_ Ditto
11m
- - -
_
_
12 X 8,27,50
50
_ >50
_
- - -
13
_
_ X 7,15,50
50
_ >50
14
_ Ditto
- - -
_
_
15 X 8,20,50
50
_ >50
_
_ Ditto
- - -
16
_
_ X 7,18,50 50
_ >50
17
_
_

LOG OF BORING

DEPTH (m)
Water Depth
R.Q.D (%)
LEGEND
SYMBOL
REC (%)
SCR (%)
N-SPT VERSUS DEPTH
blows
SPT
SN
N
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
_
18 X 9,15,50
50
_ >50
Gravel : 0%
_
19
Fines : 19.4%
_
_ S3 X 6,23,50 50
_ >50
20
_ Ditto
_
_
21 X 10,18,50 50
_ >50
_
_ Ditto
22
_
50
_ X 7,18,50
_ >50
23
_ Ditto
_
_ 50
24 X 8,20,50
_ >50
_
_ Ditto
25
_ 50
_ X 9,22,50
_ >50
26
_ Ditto
_
50
_
27 X 7,12,50
_ >50
Gravel : 0.4%
_
28
_ 50 Fines : 29.2%
_ S4 X 6,14,50
_ >50
29
_ Ditto
_
_ 10,19,50
50

LOG OF BORING

DEPTH (m)
Water Depth
R.Q.D (%)
LEGEND
SYMBOL
REC (%)
SCR (%)
N-SPT VERSUS DEPTH
blows
SPT
SN
N
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
_
_
- - -
_
_ X 4,5,9 14
_ 14
2
- - -
_
_
3 X 4,11,20 31
_ 31
Gravel : 8.5%
_
_ Light brown, dense, Silty SAND (SM) Sand : 52.4%
- - -
4
Fines : 39.1%
_
_ S1 X 9,20,41 50
_ >50
5
_ Ditto
- - -
_
_
6 X 12,28,50 50
_ >50
_
_ Reddish brown, dense, Silty SAND (SM)
- - -
7
_
_ X 18,30,50 50
_ >50
Gravel : 2.6%
8
- - -
_
Fines : 43.9%
_
9 S2 X 10,25,50 50
_ >50
_
- - -
10
_
_ X 3,12,41 50
_ >50
11
_ Ditto
11m
- - -
_
_
12 X 7,13,50 50
_ >50
Gravel : 0%
_
_ Yellowish brown, dense, Silty SAND (SM) Sand : 71.9%
- - -
13
Fines : 28.1%
_
_ S3 X 9,10,50 50
_ >50
14
_ Ditto
- - -
_
_ 8,15,50
50

Project # 931 –J15 – L04
APPENDIX D – SUMMARY TABLE
35
Location Sieves analysis Atterberg limits Soil Rock
Moisture
Sample Unit weight UCS VST UCS IS(50)
BH No. Depth (m) % Gravel % Sand % Fines (%) LL (%) PL(%) PI(%)
No. (kN/m3) (kPa) (kPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1 1 3 3.7 60.8 35.5 13.8% NP

1 2 6 55.7 30.8 13.5 11.2% NP
1 3 12 0 63.6 36.4 14.2% NP
2 1 3 6.3 56.1 37.6 11.2% NP
2 2 9 0.9 55.3 43.8 11.3% NP
2 3 15 0 64.8 35.2 16.7% NP
2 4 19.5 0 55.6 44.4 19.8% NP
2 5 24 0 72.7 27.3 23.3% NP
3 1 4.5 3.9 69.2 26.9 9.0% NP
3 2 13.5 0 83.4 16.6 12.3% NP
3 3 18 0 77.2 22.8 17.2% NP
4 1 4.5 0.8 52.0 47.2 8.1% NP
4 2 12 0.9 75.9 23.2 13.7% NP
4 3 19.5 0 82.4 17.6 16.7% NP
4 4 25.5 0 81.7 18.3 17.4% NP
5 1 3 0 58.6 41.4 10.7% NP
5 2 10.5 0.7 54.4 44.9 8.8% NP
5 3 19.5 0 80.6 19.4 19.4% NP
5 4 28.5 0.4 70.4 29.2 18.8% NP
6 1 4.5 8.5 52.4 39.1 12.3% NP
6 2 9 2.6 53.5 43.9 8.6% NP
6 3 13.5 0 71.9 28.1 19.1% NP
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
APPENDIX E – LABORATORY RESULTS
36
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S1
Project : Warehouse & Showroom Mass of oven dry sample (g) 318.4
Location: Mar Roukoz-12 Depth (m) : 3
BH. No: 1 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
Sieve Percent of Cumulative
retained on Percent
Sieve No: opening mass retained percent retained
each sieve finer (%)
(mm) on each sieve (%) (%)
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 4 1.26 1.26 98.7
4 4.750 7.7 2.42 3.67 96.3
10 2.000 8.6 2.70 6.38 93.6
12 1.700 1.2 0.38 6.75 93.2
20 0.850 7.4 2.32 9.08 90.9
40 0.425 42.1 13.22 22.30 77.7
60 0.250 71.2 22.36 44.66 55.3
100 0.150 46.8 14.70 59.36 40.6
200 0.075 16.5 5.18 64.54 35.5
Pan 112.3
Mass loss during sieve analysis (%) 0.2 Ok less than 2%
D60 (mm) 0.28 D30(mm) - D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 3.7
40
20 %Sand 60.8
0
1 2 3 %Fines 35.5
%Gravel %Sand %Fines
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S2
BH. No: 1 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 87.6 15.06 15.06 84.9
Inch 1/2 12.5 137.9 23.71 38.77 61.2
Inch 3/8 9.5 44.1 7.58 46.35 53.6
4 4.750 54.2 9.32 55.67 44.3
10 2.000 19.7 3.39 59.06 40.9
12 1.700 1.8 0.31 59.37 40.6
20 0.850 11.2 1.93 61.30 38.7
40 0.425 42.1 7.24 68.54 31.5
60 0.250 52.2 8.98 77.51 22.5
100 0.150 34.7 5.97 83.48 16.5
200 0.075 17.8 3.06 86.54 13.5
Pan 78.2
D60 (mm) 11.90 D30(mm) 0.39 D10(mm) 0.1
Cu 119.00 Cc 0.13
USCS
GM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 55.7
40
20 %Sand 30.8
0
1 2 3 %Fines 13.5
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S3
BH. No: 1 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
4 4.750 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
10 2.000 4.1 0.95 0.95 99.0
12 1.700 0.7 0.16 1.11 98.9
20 0.850 12.7 2.95 4.07 95.9
40 0.425 74.4 17.28 21.35 78.7
60 0.250 104.1 24.18 45.53 54.5
100 0.150 57.8 13.43 58.95 41.0
200 0.075 20.1 4.67 63.62 36.4
Pan 156.5
D60 (mm) 0.28 D30(mm) - D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 0.0
40
20 %Sand 63.6
0
1 2 3 %Fines 36.4
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S1
BH. No: 2 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 10.1 2.90 2.90 97.1
4 4.750 11.7 3.36 6.26 93.7
10 2.000 13.5 3.87 10.13 89.9
12 1.700 2.1 0.60 10.73 89.3
20 0.850 15.7 4.51 15.24 84.8
40 0.425 35.5 10.19 25.42 74.6
60 0.250 58.8 16.87 42.30 57.7
100 0.150 54.7 15.70 57.99 42.0
200 0.075 15.2 4.36 62.35 37.6
Pan 130.7
D60 (mm) 0.28 D30(mm) - D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 6.3
40
20 %Sand 56.1
0
1 2 3 %Fines 37.6
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S2
BH. No: 2 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
4 4.750 3.1 0.89 0.89 99.1
10 2.000 7.1 2.04 2.93 97.1
12 1.700 1.1 0.32 3.24 96.8
20 0.850 8.3 2.38 5.62 94.4
40 0.425 31.5 9.04 14.66 85.3
60 0.250 46.5 13.34 28.00 72.0
100 0.150 78.2 22.43 50.43 49.6
200 0.075 20.1 5.77 56.20 43.8
Pan 150
D60 (mm) 0.19 D30(mm) - D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 0.9
40
20 %Sand 55.3
0
1 2 3 %Fines 43.8
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S3
BH. No: 2 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
4 4.750 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
10 2.000 1.5 0.44 0.44 99.6
12 1.700 0.4 0.12 0.56 99.4
20 0.850 9.1 2.67 3.23 96.8
40 0.425 83.3 24.45 27.68 72.3
60 0.250 55.8 16.38 44.06 55.9
100 0.150 52.5 15.41 59.47 40.5
200 0.075 18.1 5.31 64.78 35.2
Pan 119.2
D60 (mm) 0.29 D30(mm) - D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 0.0
40
20 %Sand 64.8
0
1 2 3 %Fines 35.2
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S4
Location: Mar Roukoz-12 Depth (m) : 19.5
BH. No: 2 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
4 4.750 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
10 2.000 1.7 0.54 0.54 99.5
12 1.700 0.5 0.16 0.70 99.3
20 0.850 8.7 2.77 3.47 96.5
40 0.425 43.2 13.74 17.21 82.8
60 0.250 56.2 17.88 35.09 64.9
100 0.150 46.7 14.86 49.95 50.0
200 0.075 17.6 5.60 55.55 44.4
Pan 139.4
D60 (mm) 0.21 D30(mm) - D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 0.0
40
20 %Sand 55.6
0
1 2 3 %Fines 44.4
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S5
BH. No: 2 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
4 4.750 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
10 2.000 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
12 1.700 0.2 0.07 0.07 99.9
20 0.850 16.4 5.36 5.43 94.6
40 0.425 80.7 26.38 31.81 68.2
60 0.250 61.1 19.97 51.78 48.2
100 0.150 43.3 14.15 65.94 34.1
200 0.075 20.8 6.80 72.74 27.3
Pan 83.1
D60 (mm) 0.34 D30(mm) 0.10 D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 0.0
40
20 %Sand 72.7
0
1 2 3 %Fines 27.3
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S1
BH. No: 3 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
4 4.750 12.7 3.86 3.86 96.1
10 2.000 8.3 2.52 6.38 93.6
12 1.700 0.7 0.21 6.59 93.4
20 0.850 2.8 0.85 7.44 92.6
40 0.425 6.7 2.04 9.48 90.5
60 0.250 101.3 30.78 40.26 59.7
100 0.150 90.4 27.47 67.73 32.3
200 0.075 17.7 5.38 73.11 26.9
Pan 88.3
D60 (mm) 0.25 D30(mm) 0.10 D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 3.9
40
20 %Sand 69.2
0
1 2 3 %Fines 26.9
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S2
BH. No: 3 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
4 4.750 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
10 2.000 0.5 0.13 0.13 99.9
12 1.700 0.1 0.03 0.16 99.8
20 0.850 9.6 2.53 2.68 97.3
40 0.425 167.4 44.04 46.72 53.3
60 0.250 69.1 18.18 64.90 35.1
100 0.150 54.2 14.26 79.16 20.8
200 0.075 16.1 4.24 83.40 16.6
Pan 62.6
D60 (mm) 0.47 D30(mm) 0.21 D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 0.0
40
20 %Sand 83.4
0
1 2 3 %Fines 16.6
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S3
BH. No: 3 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
4 4.750 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
10 2.000 0.8 0.23 0.23 99.8
12 1.700 0.5 0.14 0.37 99.6
20 0.850 14.9 4.19 4.56 95.4
40 0.425 97.4 27.42 31.98 68.0
60 0.250 97.1 27.34 59.32 40.7
100 0.150 48.5 13.65 72.97 27.0
200 0.075 15.1 4.25 77.22 22.8
Pan 80.3
D60 (mm) 0.36 D30(mm) 0.17 D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 0.0
40
20 %Sand 77.2
0
1 2 3 %Fines 22.8
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S1
BH. No: 4 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
4 4.750 2.5 0.77 0.77 99.2
10 2.000 4.6 1.43 2.20 97.8
12 1.700 0.4 0.12 2.32 97.7
20 0.850 12.1 3.75 6.07 93.9
40 0.425 38.5 11.93 18.00 82.0
60 0.250 50.4 15.61 33.61 66.4
100 0.150 40.1 12.42 46.03 54.0
200 0.075 21.9 6.78 52.82 47.2
Pan 150
D60 (mm) 0.36 D30(mm) 0.17 D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 0.8
40
20 %Sand 52.0
0
1 2 3 %Fines 47.2
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S2
BH. No: 4 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
4 4.750 2.8 0.87 0.87 99.1
10 2.000 2.1 0.65 1.51 98.5
12 1.700 0.5 0.15 1.67 98.3
20 0.850 15.7 4.85 6.52 93.5
40 0.425 107.3 33.16 39.68 60.3
60 0.250 73.8 22.81 62.48 37.5
100 0.150 35.1 10.85 73.33 26.7
200 0.075 11.2 3.46 76.79 23.2
Pan 73.8
D60 (mm) 0.42 D30(mm) 0.18 D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 0.9
40
20 %Sand 75.9
0
1 2 3 %Fines 23.2
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S3
BH. No: 4 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
4 4.750 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
10 2.000 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
12 1.700 0.2 0.05 0.05 99.9
20 0.850 13.1 3.42 3.47 96.5
40 0.425 167.1 43.56 47.03 53.0
60 0.250 90.3 23.54 70.57 29.4
100 0.150 33.4 8.71 79.28 20.7
200 0.075 12.1 3.15 82.43 17.6
Pan 66.8
D60 (mm) 0.48 D30(mm) 0.25 D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 0.0
40
20 %Sand 82.4
0
1 2 3 %Fines 17.6
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S4
BH. No: 4 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
4 4.750 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
10 2.000 1.1 0.26 0.26 99.7
12 1.700 1.1 0.26 0.51 99.5
20 0.850 28.1 6.55 7.06 92.9
40 0.425 134.8 31.41 38.48 61.5
60 0.250 107.4 25.03 63.51 36.5
100 0.150 58.6 13.66 77.16 22.8
200 0.075 19.5 4.54 81.71 18.3
Pan 77.6
D60 (mm) 0.41 D30(mm) 0.20 D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 0.0
40
20 %Sand 81.7
0
1 2 3 %Fines 18.3
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S1
BH. No: 5 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
4 4.750 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
10 2.000 0.2 0.05 0.05 100.0
12 1.700 0.2 0.05 0.10 99.9
20 0.850 5.7 1.42 1.52 98.5
40 0.425 49.9 12.42 13.94 86.1
60 0.250 115.3 28.70 42.64 57.4
100 0.150 51.9 12.92 55.56 44.4
200 0.075 12.1 3.01 58.58 41.4
Pan 166.2
D60 (mm) 0.26 D30(mm) - D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 0.0
40
20 %Sand 58.6
0
1 2 3 %Fines 41.4
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S2
BH. No: 5 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
4 4.750 2.6 0.72 0.72 99.3
10 2.000 2.7 0.74 1.46 98.5
12 1.700 6.8 1.87 3.33 96.7
20 0.850 7.1 1.95 5.28 94.7
40 0.425 42.3 11.64 16.93 83.1
60 0.250 68.1 18.74 35.67 64.3
100 0.150 53.2 14.64 50.32 49.7
200 0.075 17.5 4.82 55.13 44.9
Pan 162.3
D60 (mm) 0.21 D30(mm) - D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 0.7
40
20 %Sand 54.4
0
1 2 3 %Fines 44.9
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S3
BH. No: 5 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
4 4.750 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
10 2.000 0.6 0.15 0.15 99.8
12 1.700 1.1 0.28 0.43 99.6
20 0.850 25.5 6.52 6.95 93.0
40 0.425 137.9 35.25 42.20 57.8
60 0.250 65.9 16.85 59.05 41.0
100 0.150 60.1 15.36 74.41 25.6
200 0.075 24.4 6.24 80.65 19.4
Pan 75.8
D60 (mm) 0.44 D30(mm) 0.17 D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 0.0
40
20 %Sand 80.6
0
1 2 3 %Fines 19.4
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S4
BH. No: 5 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
4 4.750 1.3 0.39 0.39 99.6
10 2.000 3.4 1.01 1.40 98.6
12 1.700 1.1 0.33 1.73 98.3
20 0.850 11.7 3.48 5.21 94.8
40 0.425 52.2 15.53 20.74 79.3
60 0.250 78.1 23.24 43.98 56.0
100 0.150 67.2 19.99 63.97 36.0
200 0.075 22.8 6.78 70.75 29.2
Pan 97.9
D60 (mm) 0.27 D30(mm) 0.10 D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 0.4
40
20 %Sand 70.4
0
1 2 3 %Fines 29.2
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S1
BH. No: 6 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 8.5 3.32 3.32 96.7
4 4.750 13.4 5.23 8.55 91.5
10 2.000 6.1 2.38 10.93 89.1
12 1.700 0.5 0.20 11.12 88.9
20 0.850 3.6 1.41 12.53 87.5
40 0.425 23.5 9.17 21.70 78.3
60 0.250 42.1 16.43 38.13 61.9
100 0.150 43.8 17.10 55.23 44.8
200 0.075 14.4 5.62 60.85 39.1
Pan 100.5
Mass loss during sieve analysis (%) -0.1 Ok less than 2%
D60 (mm) 0.24 D30(mm) - D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 8.5
40
20 %Sand 52.4
0
1 2 3 %Fines 39.1
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S2
BH. No: 6 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 3.5 1.14 1.14 98.9
4 4.750 4.4 1.43 2.57 97.4
10 2.000 9.5 3.09 5.66 94.3
12 1.700 1.1 0.36 6.01 94.0
20 0.850 7.2 2.34 8.36 91.6
40 0.425 32.2 10.47 18.82 81.2
60 0.250 54.6 17.75 36.57 63.4
100 0.150 46.8 15.21 51.79 48.2
200 0.075 13.4 4.36 56.14 43.9
Pan 135.1
Mass loss during sieve analysis (%) -0.1 Ok less than 2%
D60 (mm) 0.22 D30(mm) - D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 2.6
40
20 %Sand 53.5
0
1 2 3 %Fines 43.9
Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
Sample No. S3
BH. No: 6 Date: 18/12/2015
Mass of soil
retained on Percent
(g)
Inch 1 1/2 37.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1.0 25 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/4 19 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 1/2 12.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
Inch 3/8 9.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
4 4.750 0 0.00 0.00 100.0
10 2.000 1.1 0.33 0.33 99.7
12 1.700 0.4 0.12 0.45 99.6
20 0.850 9.9 2.95 3.40 96.6
40 0.425 71.3 21.26 24.66 75.3
60 0.250 88.1 26.27 50.94 49.1
100 0.150 50.2 14.97 65.91 34.1
200 0.075 20.2 6.02 71.94 28.1
Pan 92.7
D60 (mm) 0.31 D30(mm) 0.10 D10(mm) -
Cu Cc
USCS
SM
Classification
100
90
80
Percent passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size, D (mm)
100
Percentage
80
60 % Gravel 0.0
40
20 %Sand 71.9
0
1 2 3 %Fines 28.1
Project : Warehouse & Showroom
Location: Mar Roukoz
Lot No.: 12
Moisture content-ASTM D2216

Borehole No. 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4
Depth (m): 3 6 12 3 9 15 19.5 24 4.5 13.5 18 4.5
Mass of can, W1(g) 32.8 34.6 32.8 33.7 32.1 33.7 33.8 34.7 38.4 32.8 32.7 33.1
Mass of can + wet soil, W2 (g) 89.8 87.1 73.4 78.6 88.3 95.6 52.9 76.6 81.1 89.2 55.1 71.1
Mass of can + dry soil, W3 (g) 82.9 81.8 68.4 74.1 82.6 86.8 49.7 68.7 77.5 83.0 51.8 68.2
Mass of moisture, W2-W3 (g) 6.9 5.3 5.1 4.5 5.7 8.8 3.2 7.9 3.5 6.2 3.3 2.9
Mass of dry soil, W3-W1 (g) 50.1 47.2 35.6 40.4 50.5 53.1 15.9 34.0 39.1 50.2 19.1 35.1
Moisture content (%) 13.8% 11.2% 14.2% 11.2% 11.3% 16.7% 19.8% 23.3% 9.0% 12.3% 17.2% 8.1%
Moisture content-ASTM D2216

Borehole No. 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6
Depth (m): 19.5 25.5 3 10.5 19.5 28.5 4.5 9 13.5
Mass of can, W1(g) 32.7 32.4 32.8 32.4 32.6 32.4 32.1 32.7 32.8
Mass of can + wet soil, W2 (g) 79.1 80.2 88.8 80.3 94.7 60.8 67.0 81.8 66.9
Mass of can + dry soil, W3 (g) 72.5 73.1 83.4 76.4 84.7 56.3 63.2 77.9 61.5
Mass of moisture, W2-W3 (g) 6.6 7.1 5.4 3.9 10.1 4.5 3.8 3.9 5.5
Mass of dry soil, W3-W1 (g) 39.8 40.7 50.6 44.0 52.1 23.9 31.1 45.2 28.7
Moisture content (%) 16.7% 17.4% 10.7% 8.8% 19.4% 18.8% 12.3% 8.6% 19.1%
Project # 931 –J15 – L04
Geotechnical
Foundation
Experts
LEBANON – BEIRUT
FURN El CHEBBAK – KASTOUN CENTER
GIGIEFFE BUILDING – 2nd FLOOR
Website: www.gfe-leb.com
Email: info@gfe-leb.com
Mobile: + 961 3 004161
TEL: +961 1 289 789
FAX: +961 1 289 489
37

Soil Report

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Soil Report

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

GEOTECHNICAL FOUNDATION EXPERTS Lot 12- MAR ROUKOZ

Project # 931 –J15 – L04

Presented to: Mr. Toufic Kriedieh & Yasser Beydoun, Owners

December 26, 2015

2. SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION ................................................................................. 5

3. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS .............................................................................................. 6

4. LABORATORY TESTS ................................................................................................... 8

5. GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE AREA ............................................................................ 8

b. SEISMICITY IN THE AREA ................................................................................. 9

c. SEISMIC PARAMETERS .................................................................................. 10

6. GROUNDWATER TABLE ............................................................................................ 10

7. DRAINAGE SYSTEM ................................................................................................... 11

8. LABORATORY RESULTS ............................................................................................ 11

9. GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION- SUBSURFACE STRATA .......................................... 12

10. FOUNDATION TYPE ................................................................................................... 14

11. FOUNDATION DESIGN ............................................................................................... 14

11.1 Bearing capacity ............................................................................................. 14

11.2 Settlement ....................................................................................................... 17

11.3 Coefficient of sliding ....................................................................................... 18

a. Static earth pressure ....................................................................................... 19

b. Dynamic earth pressure .................................................................................. 20

13. SHORING AND EXCAVATION WORKS ....................................................................... 21

14. GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS ................................................................................ 22

15. DEWATERING ............................................................................................................ 23

16. FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .................................................. 23

17. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 23

18. CLOSURE .................................................................................................................... 26

APPENDIX A- SITE PHOTOS ............................................................................................. 28

LOCATION OF BOREHOLES ............................................................................................ 32

APPENDIX B - CORE PHOTOGRAPHS .............................................................................. 33

APPENDIX C – BOREHOLE LOGS ..................................................................................... 34

APPENDIX D – SUMMARY TABLE .................................................................................... 35

APPENDIX E – LABORATORY RESULTS .......................................................................... 36

Proposed Plot 307

Figure 1 : Aerial view with approximate location of the site

The plot is bordered:

- To the North by the plot 308 free from any construction,

2. SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION

The scope of the investigation consisted of the following:

1. Performing boreholes to explore the subsurface conditions and to collect

2. Performing laboratory testing to determine the properties of the collected

Table 1 : Coordinates of the in-situ testing

BH5 30 -332818.15 -30173.81

Table 2 : Laboratory testing

Sieve analysis ASTM D422 22

5. GENERAL GEOLOGY OF THE AREA

Figure 2 : Geological mapping in the proposed area

b. SEISMICITY IN THE AREA

Figure 3 : Location of secondary minor fault

Figure 4 : Percentage of Sand (Left), Percentage of Fines (Right)

According to the ASTM D-2487, representative samples can be classified as below

Table 3 : Soil classification

9. GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION- SUBSURFACE STRATA

 Layer 1: Fill and agricultural soil

 Layer 3 : Yellowish brown Silty SAND

- The formation has an adequate factor of safety against ultimate failure.

11.1 Bearing capacity

Table 4: Factors for bearing capacity

N  N q  1. tan1.4       B'  

N c  N q  1. cot      B'   

Above parameters are described on the following picture:

Figure 5 : Representation of water effect on the bearing capacity